Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH:Legends images
This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. Advanced Jedi Training Droid 6 (Talk to my master) 01:05, January 25, 2015 (UTC)
I have noticed that many of our Canon articles feature Legends images, even after they are continually removed. For example, our Canon Armor pages is loaded with images from Legends sourcebooks, roleplaying supplements, etc. We need to make sure that this does not continue to happen in the future, and retroactively correct our mistakes. - AV-6R7User talk:AV-6R7 02:22, December 23, 2014 (UTC)
- If you see them, remove them. That's really the only thing to do about it. We can't prevent it, but we can correct it when we see it. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 02:34, December 23, 2014 (UTC)
- Will do, but what if an image from a Legends sources such as an old Databank entry is the same as one from a newer sources? Can we retain it? - AV-6R7User talk:AV-6R7 03:03, December 23, 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see why not. If it's in an official source, it's canon. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 03:06, December 23, 2014 (UTC)
- Cool, the Deviss image is in the Factivity book. I'm putting it on the Canon Phase II page. - AV-6R7User talk:AV-6R7 03:09, December 23, 2014 (UTC)
- I don't suppose it would be possible to say, maybe categorize Legends images under a category called "Legends images"? And maybe implement a code asking people to at least double-check their use? ProfessorTofty (talk) 09:48, December 23, 2014 (UTC)
- That sounds good, but we images may show up in both categories. - AV-6R7User talk:AV-6R7 00:45, December 24, 2014 (UTC)
- Some of the admins have mentioned a similar idea as well, Tofty. Specifically, having a split between canon and legends images (i.e. Category:Legends images of Anakin Skywalker and Category:Canon images of Anakin Skywalker, or something like that). So it's possible something like that could happen sometime moving forward. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 01:01, December 24, 2014 (UTC)
- It would help with the issue. Perhaps in the image have it split between legends and canon appearances. - AV-6R7User talk:AV-6R7 01:05, December 24, 2014 (UTC)
- Some of the admins have mentioned a similar idea as well, Tofty. Specifically, having a split between canon and legends images (i.e. Category:Legends images of Anakin Skywalker and Category:Canon images of Anakin Skywalker, or something like that). So it's possible something like that could happen sometime moving forward. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 01:01, December 24, 2014 (UTC)
- That sounds good, but we images may show up in both categories. - AV-6R7User talk:AV-6R7 00:45, December 24, 2014 (UTC)
- I don't suppose it would be possible to say, maybe categorize Legends images under a category called "Legends images"? And maybe implement a code asking people to at least double-check their use? ProfessorTofty (talk) 09:48, December 23, 2014 (UTC)
- Cool, the Deviss image is in the Factivity book. I'm putting it on the Canon Phase II page. - AV-6R7User talk:AV-6R7 03:09, December 23, 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see why not. If it's in an official source, it's canon. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 03:06, December 23, 2014 (UTC)
- Will do, but what if an image from a Legends sources such as an old Databank entry is the same as one from a newer sources? Can we retain it? - AV-6R7User talk:AV-6R7 03:03, December 23, 2014 (UTC)
- I have added a new parameter to {{Information}}, namely
|continuity=. Instructions on how to use it can be found on the template page. Once the majority of our images are categorized, Special:CategoryIntersection can be easily used to intersect the desired subject category with the desired canonicity category, producing a list of appropriate images to choose from. Some images will be able to be categorized by a bot based on their source categories; I will work on that when I have spare time, and will also ask Cade to do the same (he'll probably get most of them before I get around to starting :P). —MJ— Council Chambers 02:26, December 24, 2014 (UTC)- Excellent work. - AV-6R7User talk:AV-6R7 02:31, December 24, 2014 (UTC)
- Except that images, like characters, can be both Legends and NuCanon. This new parameter you've added does not show any consideration for this fact, and we were actually considering splitting the categories rather than any parameter method. CategoryIntersection is not a well-known extension and doesn't exactly help most readers and editors. Any sort of change to the image system will likely have to go through a CT and should not be done unilaterally. Cade
Calrayn 02:44, December 24, 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) 1) The
bothargument handles exactly that possibility. 2) CategoryIntersection is linked from every category, next to the article count and the file count, and is sufficient for our purposes. I can even add special links to directly perform intersections on these categories to simplify things further. As for a CT, we can do that if needed, but it seems like unnecessary bureaucracy to me. I would think that at most, discussion here should be sufficient. —MJ— Training Room 02:49, December 24, 2014 (UTC) - To interject, I don't really see the need to do this at all. People should be able to check the source before adding an image to an article.--Exiled Jedi
(Greetings) 03:02, December 24, 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) As a matter of general principle, I agree that this doesn't really need a CT. It's not all that user-facing, and it's a pretty minor and uncontroversial organizational change. However, the way that this ended up happening is the part that I don't agree with. You made a change that will require, as you said, a "massive bot run," only you were unwilling to put in the work upon making the change (you said you'd do it when you have spare time). As a result, the work as a result of a unilateral change ended up being pushed off to Cade, who had no opportunity to even say whether he would or could do it. So yeah, considering that (as well as some, though not a lot of reluctance for this system on IRC), it should go through a CT. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 03:03, December 24, 2014 (UTC)
- It seems I missed the both parameter, but I do think that this needs a CT, as there's reluctance on at least two fronts—whether or not this is the way to go, and whether or not we want to segregate or categorize images based on their continuity. Not to mention the fact that a CT brings public awareness to a change and lets people know about decisions. Cade Calrayn 03:09, December 24, 2014 (UTC)
- This endless bureaucracy is why the Galactic Republic fell. Politicians squabbling endlessly about stuff that we need to get accomplished. If Wookieepedia is to ever to move forward, the administrators with start having to force change. - AV-6R7User talk:AV-6R7 03:17, December 24, 2014 (UTC)
- Like I said, I agree on general principle, but this was done in a really dumb way with no discussion. Why should one admin be able to make a change that requires a lot of bot work, and then pawn off the work on another admin (without even discussing it with that admin)? And as ironic as this is going to sound, if you disagree with the need for voting, create a vote with specific situations where you think a CT isn't required. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 03:22, December 24, 2014 (UTC)
- The vote to not vote. Fine, we should create a CT on the matter of wether to implement this new system. - AV-6R7User talk:AV-6R7 03:28, December 24, 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) As for not doing the work myself, I'm really busy for a while and thought I wouldn't be able to run the bot for a while. However, it turns out that I can start my bot running tonight and let it run overnight. I still disagree with the need for a CT at all. As for "People should be able to check the source before adding an image to an article.", they should, but it's much easier this way, especially when trying to find an appropriate image in a huge category. As for splitting categories instead, that seems like a lot of extra work for little benefit; with this, a single category intersection can give the same results as the split category, and most of the work here can be easily done by bot, whereas with splitting, more manual attention will be needed, I think. —MJ— Jedi Council Chambers 03:32, December 24, 2014 (UTC)
- Like I said, I agree on general principle, but this was done in a really dumb way with no discussion. Why should one admin be able to make a change that requires a lot of bot work, and then pawn off the work on another admin (without even discussing it with that admin)? And as ironic as this is going to sound, if you disagree with the need for voting, create a vote with specific situations where you think a CT isn't required. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 03:22, December 24, 2014 (UTC)
- This endless bureaucracy is why the Galactic Republic fell. Politicians squabbling endlessly about stuff that we need to get accomplished. If Wookieepedia is to ever to move forward, the administrators with start having to force change. - AV-6R7User talk:AV-6R7 03:17, December 24, 2014 (UTC)
- It seems I missed the both parameter, but I do think that this needs a CT, as there's reluctance on at least two fronts—whether or not this is the way to go, and whether or not we want to segregate or categorize images based on their continuity. Not to mention the fact that a CT brings public awareness to a change and lets people know about decisions. Cade
- (edit conflict) As a matter of general principle, I agree that this doesn't really need a CT. It's not all that user-facing, and it's a pretty minor and uncontroversial organizational change. However, the way that this ended up happening is the part that I don't agree with. You made a change that will require, as you said, a "massive bot run," only you were unwilling to put in the work upon making the change (you said you'd do it when you have spare time). As a result, the work as a result of a unilateral change ended up being pushed off to Cade, who had no opportunity to even say whether he would or could do it. So yeah, considering that (as well as some, though not a lot of reluctance for this system on IRC), it should go through a CT. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 03:03, December 24, 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) 1) The
- Except that images, like characters, can be both Legends and NuCanon. This new parameter you've added does not show any consideration for this fact, and we were actually considering splitting the categories rather than any parameter method. CategoryIntersection is not a well-known extension and doesn't exactly help most readers and editors. Any sort of change to the image system will likely have to go through a CT and should not be done unilaterally. Cade
- Excellent work. - AV-6R7User talk:AV-6R7 02:31, December 24, 2014 (UTC)
(Reset indent) It's clear from both here and IRC that there's opposition to this being done unilaterally. Please do not run a bot. You could start the CT, though. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 03:36, December 24, 2014 (UTC)
- OK, fine. Please see Forum:CT:Canon/Legends image categorization. —MJ— War Room 03:56, December 24, 2014 (UTC)
- Just as a side note, if you remove images from a Canon article because they are from a Legends source, can you try to find relevant Canon images to replace them with? That way we're not just deleting images from articles and leaving them all bare. Thanks.--Richterbelmont10
(come in R2!) 04:07, December 25, 2014 (UTC)
